1 - 10 Next
Yesterday, I was surprised to learn that the metrics to determine who is 'poor' and therefore qualifies for some aspect of welfare does not include the welfare benefits they then receive. My first reaction was outrage over yet another example of political and bureaucratic speciousness. The I realized that as a practical measure something like that needs to be done or else those who qualify for assistance would then immediately become unqualified. But to avoid the exaggerate of the number of those remaining poor would require two metrics, one for those whose real total income qualifies them as poor and one for those who would otherwise qualify as poor were they not to be getting government assistance. Of course that would be far to sophisticated and complex for the government to do but more importantly it reveals that they have no incentive to do it. Quite the opposite. It is in their best interests for the apparent poverty rate to remain high. That is the problem with all government programs. To the very extent that they are seen to succeed they reduce their value. Infuriatingly, the extent to which they are, therefore not perceived as succeeding does not hurt them at all. Good results cannot be expected from those for whom the perception of good results are not in their best interests.
When the chief law reinforcement officer in the land refuses to enforce the law upon himself we are in real trouble.
To continue a train of thought debated yesterday when the new Benghazi revelations broke, it is not a foregone conclusion that the Democrats will not be able to dodge the bullet from this smoking gun.
Trey Gowdy's value is not that he is a Republican. It is specifically that he is a Conservative.
In response to:

Multiculturalism Is a Failure

Raymond, (Ret) Wrote: 4 hours ago (9:54 AM)
Neither is a culture stagnant. Circumstances and population change and cultures change in response. Some elements of a foreign culture brought in by people of a different culture may well work well within their new culture and that culture may well, then, evolve to exploit them. Thank providence for that least their be no enchiladas, classical music or impressionism. But that depends on the real world consequences of the particulars, driven by whether or not they improve the functionality of the culture as a whole, not on some vague tolerance for diversity and multiculturalism for its own sake.
In response to:

Multiculturalism Is a Failure

Raymond, (Ret) Wrote: 4 hours ago (9:54 AM)
Multiculturalism means not having a culture. It's natural extension is for everybody to be guided by a different culture. It defeats the entire purpose and value of having a culture. Culture is the underlying inherently agreed upon behavior standards of a specific and identifiable group of people. It allows them to anticipate and understand the way each other will act and react in situations and circumstances of everyday life without which misunderstandings would lead to resentments, over-reactions and social chaos. Cultures evolve much the way Darwin discovered species evolve. That which works to the best benefit of all involved tends to be repeated, which repetition reinforces its merits. Language is the best but far from the only good example. A culture should all speak the same language for the same reason any language is spoken at all. To accurately communicate with each other. Languages evolve to the extent that sounds. expressions and gestures come to mean the same thing to everyone. One is not necessarily any better than another. Their value is not in their syntactical rules and pronunciations. It is in the mutual comprehension of it's practitioners. The various constructs of a given culture are not independent of each other. Feathers would not be as useful to birds if birds did not also have wings. Similarly, cultural norms such as religion, cuisine, childcare, government and conflict resolution all. to some extent, are influenced by each other. Again, it is not that any specific practice is superior to any other. It is whether or not they all work well together and do not conflict with each other. The left is quite right that no culture nor specific aspect of a culture is necessary the best. Where they go wrong is to speciously extend that to mean that the parts of a culture can be randomly intermixed without some detriment to the efficacy of the whole.
In response to:

Prickly Narcissist

Raymond, (Ret) Wrote: 22 hours ago (3:52 PM)
Obama knows as well as anyone that he has not actually done anything to account for his success at getting people to adore him. But he does not feel inadequate as one might expect. To the contrary he assumes that success is simply a consequence of his being Barrack Hussein Obama. That being all he has ever done and having achieved success at it, he being he must be the cause of that success. He fully expected that he would not have to do anything more upon becoming President beyond becoming president for everything to get better.
Yes and my hopes are high. But given how much they have been able to cover up and get away with that should have already destroyed them I will withhold high expectations.
Well, we will just have to elect them to see what they will do.
It is infuriating the way the left applauds Obama for making slow incremental concessions to the kind of tougher foreign policy that they claim to abhor in order to do as little as necessary to appease his critics towards that end. If things get better they will help him spike the ball without acknowledging it is contrary to their ideology and if it fails they will blame the right for placing Obama in a position where he was unfortunately forced to employ it.
1 - 10 Next